INTEGRATION OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS ATTRIBUTED TO BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA (LUTS/BPH) CARE: QUALITATIVE INSIGHTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Author(s)
Rowida Mohamed, PhD1, Grace Bardwick, Ms1, Padraig Carolan, Ms2, Dacey Maglaque, Bs3, Pooja Talaty, Bs3, Francesca Farina, PhD1, Abigail Smith, PhD2, Alex Glaser, MD3, James Griffith, PhD1;
1The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 2Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA, 3Endeavor Health, Chicago, IL, USA
1The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 2Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA, 3Endeavor Health, Chicago, IL, USA
OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are embedded in lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) care, yet patient perspectives on how to integrate PROMs into routine practice remain underexplored. We sought to describe patient experiences with PROMs commonly used in BPH/LUTS care and to generate patient-informed implementation strategies for clinical workflows and electronic health records (EHRs).
METHODS: We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews with English-speaking adults aged≥50 years who were receiving outpatient LUTS/BPH care at a single health system. Purposive sampling balanced treatment pathways (medical vs surgical). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using interpretive description with double-coding and iterative consensus. PROMs administered included AUA-SI, LURN SI-29/SI-10, SHIM, MSHQ-EjD, PROMIS-29 Profile, and others.
RESULTS: Twenty patients participated in qualitative interviews (12 receiving medical treatment and 8 receiving surgical treatment; mean age 70.4±9.2 years). Qualitative synthesis yielded four themes: (1) perceived benefits—PROMs prompted self-reflection, longitudinal tracking, and cross-clinician communication; (2) PROMs content—patients questioned relevance of non-urologic domains and noted repetitive items, unclear terms (e.g., “split stream”), and restrictive recall periods; (3) perceived barriers—high questionnaire volume and burden of voiding diaries (particularly overnight); and (4) practical considerations—strong preference for visible clinician action on scores, clear plain-language summaries, and patient-choice in how results are shared. Patient-derived, testable strategies included: brief upfront rationale and time estimate; an EHR “patient-preference” workflow (opt-out of non-urology or sexual-health modules, preferred feedback channel, routing permissions to specific clinicians); and reliable, visit-linked acknowledgment of PROM trends.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients view PROMs as valuable when results are interpretable, acted upon, and aligned with individual preferences. A multilevel implementation approach—education at survey launch, EHR-embedded patient-preference workflow, and routine clinician feedback tied to decisions—may reduce burden, improve engagement, and support sustainable PROM integration in LUTS/BPH care. Prospective evaluation of these strategies is warranted.
METHODS: We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews with English-speaking adults aged≥50 years who were receiving outpatient LUTS/BPH care at a single health system. Purposive sampling balanced treatment pathways (medical vs surgical). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using interpretive description with double-coding and iterative consensus. PROMs administered included AUA-SI, LURN SI-29/SI-10, SHIM, MSHQ-EjD, PROMIS-29 Profile, and others.
RESULTS: Twenty patients participated in qualitative interviews (12 receiving medical treatment and 8 receiving surgical treatment; mean age 70.4±9.2 years). Qualitative synthesis yielded four themes: (1) perceived benefits—PROMs prompted self-reflection, longitudinal tracking, and cross-clinician communication; (2) PROMs content—patients questioned relevance of non-urologic domains and noted repetitive items, unclear terms (e.g., “split stream”), and restrictive recall periods; (3) perceived barriers—high questionnaire volume and burden of voiding diaries (particularly overnight); and (4) practical considerations—strong preference for visible clinician action on scores, clear plain-language summaries, and patient-choice in how results are shared. Patient-derived, testable strategies included: brief upfront rationale and time estimate; an EHR “patient-preference” workflow (opt-out of non-urology or sexual-health modules, preferred feedback channel, routing permissions to specific clinicians); and reliable, visit-linked acknowledgment of PROM trends.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients view PROMs as valuable when results are interpretable, acted upon, and aligned with individual preferences. A multilevel implementation approach—education at survey launch, EHR-embedded patient-preference workflow, and routine clinician feedback tied to decisions—may reduce burden, improve engagement, and support sustainable PROM integration in LUTS/BPH care. Prospective evaluation of these strategies is warranted.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
PCR32
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient Engagement
Disease
SDC: Urinary/Kidney Disorders